Jessica Ratliff v. State Farm, No. 14-1230 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1230 JESSICA RATLIFF, as Administratrix of the Estate of Michael Ratliff, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (2:13-cv-00008-JPB-JES) Submitted: September 30, 2014 Before KING and Circuit Judge. WYNN, Circuit Decided: Judges, and October 8, 2014 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Scott W. Andrews, HOOVER ANDREWS PLLC, Barboursville, West Virginia, for Appellant. Walter M. Jones, III, E. Kay Fuller, Michael M. Stevens, MARTIN & SEIBERT, L.C., Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: This action arises out of a motor vehicle accident that resulted Ratliff sought in to the death recover of Jessica under husband. underinsured the Ratliff s motorist provision in the decedent s automobile insurance policy, which was issued by State Farm Automobile Insurance Co. (State Farm). State Farm refused payment on the ground that the decedent bore primary responsibility for the accident. Ratliff then sued State Farm, and the district court granted summary judgment in favor of State Farm. Ratliff now appeals. We affirm. Ratliff first contends that the district court abused its discretion when it granted State Farm s motion to strike Ratliff s expert witness, Kevin Theriault. The district court excluded Theriault s testimony on the ground that his opinion was based in speculation and conjecture and was unsupported by sufficient known facts. After thorough review, we hold that the testimony was unreliable under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993), and, accordingly, was properly excluded. We further hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting State Farm s motion to file its summary judgment motion beyond the deadline set in a scheduling order. Notably, the summary judgment motion reasonably could not have been filed until after the district court ruled on the 2 motion to strike, and that ruling was issued after the relevant deadline. Finally, with respect to the court s order granting the motion for summary judgment, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
